Bartholomew & Augila, a big thank you to both of you. Your insightful posts are one of the main reasons I like TFL. I agree with your position 100%. I'm all for helping people and trying to show people our side of things. I'm all for explaining the merits of our sport and both the right and the need to keep and bear arms. Every example I see cited as a reason for more gun control, I see as all the more reason you need to exercise your right. No one is going to protect you better than you can.
So if someone is looking for information so they can bolster up their gun control stance .... they can take a hike.

__________________
597 VTR, because there's so many cans and so little time!

If I could trust any of our representatives in government, I'd support stricter gun control.
Being a part of this Forum, I have found that most of us are realistic gun owners who are well versed in who,when & why to carry. For those of us in this category I fully support your right to own & carry. But because of the huge political differences on what's what, the wrong people have access to weapons that they should not have. If anyone can come up with a better way to keep us safe from the maniacs & felons please tell me/us how to do so.

If I could trust any of our representatives in government, I'd support stricter gun control.
Being a part of this Forum, I have found that most of us are realistic gun owners who are well versed in who,when & why to carry. For those of us in this category I fully support your right to own & carry. But because of the huge political differences on what's what, the wrong people have access to weapons that they should not have. If anyone can come up with a better way to keep us safe from the maniacs & felons please tell me/us how to do so.

The wrong people will have access to weapons long after the government takes your's! For myself, I don't worry about them as that a waste of time. Best way to keep yourself safe from felons and maniacs is to carry your own weapon and use it better than the bad guy!

the wrong people have access to weapons that they should not have. If anyone can come up with a better way to keep us safe from the maniacs & felons please tell me/us how to do so.

The wrong people have had access to weapons they "should not have" since the rock became the first weapon. Though actually it predates that.

Nature equips us all with "weapons". The most important one is the human mind. This is "The Riddle of Steel" in barbarian fantasy stories. The sword (the steel) is nothing without the hand (the will) to use it.

Sheer physical strength is a weapon, if the will to use it is as such is there. There is nothing on Earth that cannot be uses/misused as a weapon if the will is there. This includes gravity.

Next point is, who are the "wrong people"???

The only uniform and fair standard I can see to use is that the "wrong people" are people who have already done the "wrong thing".

In that regard they self identify. And any and all claims about who are the wrong people, when those people have not done the wrong thing is an opinion, a value judgement that mortals are not qualified to make.

What would be your criteria for determining they are the "Wrong people", if they have done no harm? Physical appearance?? Ethnic group? Religion? DNA scan?? No matter what you chose, it's a LIE. And its compounded by the lie that safety can be assured and guaranteed if we "only do. xxxxx"

Less "enlightened" societies had a response to the "maniacs & felons" (and I take issue with "felons" but that's another discussion) their response to people who did harm was to remove them from society. Often permanently.

This does not, and cannot prevent harm, nothing can, and they knew that. But it did prevent those people they caught from ever doing it AGAIN.

If you think prohibiting weapons results in guaranteed safety, go camp out in any prison, and see how safe you are.

To me. one of the underlying flaws in gun control is the focus on what people MIGHT do, using up resources that could otherwise be used to deal with what people DID do.

And then there's the whole assumption of "guilty until proven innocent" thing.

It seems an outmoded concept today, but rather than restrict inanimate objects because of what some individual might do, why don't we accept the fact that there is no way to read minds, no crystal ball revealing the future, and nothing we do to people who have broken no laws and committed no crimes has ANY effect on the people who have, or who will?

__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

We all obey the National Firearms Act of 1934 by the bylaws of this forum, so "gun control" is simply a matter of grey... not black and white.

If someone needs help, I try to help. I'm one of those "Liberals". I like to think that we are all interested in the shooting sports and the solution to our problems is talking and discussing issues like the friends we are, not isolating ourselves.

Used to be we could have civilized discussions and friendships even though we didn't agree with each other on everything.

We all obey the National Firearms Act of 1934 by the bylaws of this forum, so "gun control" is simply a matter of grey... not black and white.

I actively write and speak against the NFA and Hughes Amendment. I own registered weapons, which have escalated in value because there is a very limited supply which can be owned by civilians. However, I would gladly see those values fall to $300 so that every civilian could own a fully functional, and not a semi-castrated, firearm.

Lots of members of this board support gun control in various ways. It is what they consider to be common sense ore realistic gun control. They don't want children to be able to own guns and they don't want mentally unstable people to have guns (they can't be trusted, right?). They don't want felons, particularly violent felons to have guns after serving their time in prison. Some don't think people who smoke marijuana should be able to have guns, but are strangely okay with people having alcohol and being gun owners.

I dare say, you would be hard pressed to find very many people who don't support some form or forms of gun control because they feel it is the right thing to do. The do not believe the right to keep and bear arms should be extended to those people. Of course, while that have no problem with that form of gun control, they don't like any forms that would affect them.

Quote:

....as for helping out non-gun owners. The Pledge of Allegiance has the phase "one nation under God" in it.

You mean the Eisenhower-encouraged edit to help bind the US citizenry against the Godless communists? America seemed pretty happy with the Pledge for 70 odd years before it had the addition. Nothing like a little socialist doctrine in capitalist society.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration.

__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

We all obey the National Firearms Act of 1934 by the bylaws of this forum, so "gun control" is simply a matter of grey... not black and white.

If someone needs help, I try to help. I'm one of those "Liberals". I like to think that we are all interested in the shooting sports and the solution to our problems is talking and discussing issues like the friends we are, not isolating ourselves.

Used to be we could have civilized discussions and friendships even though we didn't agree with each other on everything.

^^^I agree....altho I don't consider myself a liberal. I also don't consider myself a conservative. Nor do I identify with either the Democratic or republican party. Some folks call that being a moderate independent. Been this way most of my 66 years.

There is also the GCA along with it's enhancement in 1993. The noteworthy thing to consider is that the GCA was endorsed by the NRA, perhaps because the gun that shot the President, was ordered thru their magazine, American Rifleman. A quote from NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth supported a ban on mail-order sales, stating "We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the President of the United States.

The tide of Gun Control flows and ebbs with the sentiment of the nation. Always has, always will. The above is a very stark example. Much of the recent worry of gun control is, IMHO, the lack of trust within our political system. History has shown us that it is not just the Democrats we can't trust. Still we trust in the 2nd, so why can't we trust in the government that is governed by the same piece of paper? Why will one survive when the all the rest won't? Just sayin'......

Much of the recent worry of gun control is, IMHO, the lack of trust within our political system.

I accept this. Remember that the original Militia Acts of 1792 provided that all able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 were to be enrolled in the militia, and the local militia captain was to keep a record of all the members of his company. Under the Militia Acts of 1792, each militia member was responsible for providing his own firearm and the first, basic load-out of 20 rounds of ball. Consequently, at the end of the 18th century the "authorities" knew and had a record of who owned the "assault weapons" of that day.

Although I am over the age of 45, if I were assured that my local police department wanted to keep a record of everyone who owns an AR-15 rifle so they would know who they can call on for back-up in the event of a serious "incident," I would not object. However, since I'm quite certain the local cop shop is NOT going to call on citizens for support under any foreseeable circumstances, any registration they might conduct of "assault weapons" is most likely going to be for the purpose of potential confiscation. And I am opposed to any such registration on that basis.

Much of the recent worry of gun control is, IMHO, the lack of trust within our political system. History has shown us that it is not just the Democrats we can't trust. Still we trust in the 2nd, so why can't we trust in the government that is governed by the same piece of paper? Why will one survive when the all the rest won't?

Because we aren't governed by the piece of paper, and the text matters as much as we make it matter. I like to make the text matter a lot because the alternative is making peoples' desires and opinions of the day matter more, and that's typically a bad idea.

Trust in a system that ultimately threatens force against you is something I find perverse. Affirmatively distrusting those who would ask for greater trust and vest additional power in that system seems prudent.

Seeking greater than current restriction on possession of arms reduces the scope of the right, and increases government power over exercise of the right. I would not be inclined to assist another gun owner in increasing that power because the act itself seems imprudent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stinkypete

We all obey the National Firearms Act of 1934 by the bylaws of this forum, so "gun control" is simply a matter of grey... not black and white.

Advocating for additional restriction is a matter of making the grey darker. That an individual agrees that he will observe a law is not a comment on the wisdom of that law, and shouldn't suggest that a principled opposition to additional restrictions is arbitrary.

I say let every free person have guns. If someone commits a crime for which we do not want him to have a gun once released, then it's simple - change the law to not release that person. However, once someone fully pays their debt to society, then they should be full citizens with full rights to own guns, vote etc. If we are not prepared to allow that, then we are really not prepared to let the person live, or be free in our society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete2 View Post
I don't give donations to any democrat, won't vote for one. Don't sleep with the enemy.
I agree. I dont knowingly talk to Democrats. Its truly bad that when you boil it all down, I have more in common with the Taliban than I do with Democrats.

I have to talk to a Democrat, I'm married to her
But at least she has come around to my way of thinking about gun rights.

And as far as helping a person who doesn't fully agree with your position on gun rights/gun control.....well, it's your right to help or not help. But isn't it kind of being a jerk to withhold your help (if it's not something like driving them to an anti-gun rally, of course)?

And if you won't help them, do you really think they are going to do you the courtesy of listening to your views on gun rights? If you help them, and they become a friend (or at least a friendly acquaintance), they might be more receptive to hearing your views, and you might even be able to change their mind. If, however, you treat them with hostility or callousness, they will close off, and you'll never get them to listen.

There is so much wrong with this quote that it is just darned embarrassing...

Quote:

Second, no self-respecting military in the world would use the “assault weapons” that we sometimes see in mass shootings. AR-15s fire the same sorts of bullets as small game-hunting rifles, and even do so with the same velocity and rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger). In fact, AR-15s aren’t allowed for deer hunting in most states because of the fear that they will wound rather than kill the animals. This may cause the deer to die slowly and painfully.

__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.